Libertarian Jackass

Friday, August 29, 2003

Smedley Butler on Interventionism (http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm)-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Thursday, August 28, 2003

For 12 years leading up to the latest charade in Iraq, the sanctions (aka forced starvation and impoverishment) choked the economy of Iraq leading directly or indirectly to the deaths of 1-1.5 million Iraqis and the destruction of one of the wealthiest nations in the Middel East. Today, Iraq's newest dictator pushes an Iraq investment plan.

www.foxnews.comBAGHDAD, Iraq — It's a fair bet that one Baghdad baby won't run into anybody else inIraq with the same name.

An Iraqi couple has named their 6-week-old baby boyGeorge Bush (search) to show their appreciation for U.S.efforts to force Saddam Hussein (search) out of power.

"He saved us from Saddam and that's why we named ourson after him," the baby's mother, Nadia JergisMohammed, told the Associated Press Television News. "Itwas George Bush who liberated us; without him it wouldn'thave happened."

Baby Bush was born July 11 to Mohammed, 34, and herhusband Abdul Kader Faris, 41. His full name is GeorgeBush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein.

If the couple had had twin boys, the father wanted to namethe other baby Tony Blair (search), because he said boththe U.S. and Britain liberated Iraq.

Baby Bush has two older brothers, with the more traditionalnames Omar and Ali.

The tiny boy's mother told APTN that all Iraqis hatedSaddam's regime, and that President Bush freed themfrom his dictatorship.

"If he hadn't done it the sons of Saddam would have ruledus for years," she said.

As the woman did the interview, little George Bushscreamed in his crib.

Wednesday, August 27, 2003

Throughout the summer, I have been continually heckled to write an article detailing how I went from a young “Austrian” scholar to an intern for Hon. Edwin Meese III at the Heritage Foundation and then transitioned back again to a Misesian. Well, finally, I am tired of keeping it in; so, I’ve decided to tell my story. It’s important to understand at the outset though that I thoroughly enjoyed my time at the Heritage Foundation, I truly admire Ed Meese, and if I had to choose a label for myself—well, I’ll tell you at the end.

I was living in a small trailer in Milledgeville, Georgia. It was about 31 degrees out. I was freezing. I didn’t have any direction. All I had was some candles, and some worn-out copies of Atlas Shrugged, Human Action, and The Communist Manifesto. I was contemplating which to burn first in order to stay warm for the evening. And then she showed up, Gwendolyn. Awe man, she was so hot; let’s just say she lit my fire and Rand made it through another night.

A few days later, I was coming home from the welfare office in Macon, and that crazy nut, Gwendolyn, was really lighting my fire. She had poured kerosene all over my trailer, and when I drove up, she lit it on fire. The whole thing burned in a couple of minutes. But that was okay man.

It was August 6, 2000. I remember the date well. See, the trailer burning didn’t matter because I had a scholarship to attend a weeklong conference at a libertarian institute in Alabama. The conference began that day, and it included room and board. It was an awesome week. Anyway, it was an awesome conference that expanded my world-view and convinced me that the government was absolutely 100% evil. So, I picked up my next welfare check on the way out of Auburn, and I returned to the Ville to begin my junior year of college.

Some time passed. I survived day to day. It was hard—very hard. But I kept getting my checks and going to school. I was driving a Beemer, drinking a lot of Chivas to stay warm, and quietly plotting how to overthrow all the antitrust laws. Oh, and I was keeping an eye out for Gwennie.

Next thing I knew, it was August 5, 2000. I returned to Auburn for another week-long love fest—all expenses paid since the post office had lost my last check in the mail…damn post office. It was another good week. The experience forged my views. I became a Hoppean. I was just hopping along. I picked up my next check, left Auburn, and I moved in with a kindergarten teacher in Macon.

She was cool and real good and stuff. I really liked her. But then Gwendolyn showed up one night. She convinced the teacher to burn down our little love nest. And that was that. Hey, to back up for a second, did you know that refrigerator boxes blaze up and burn out in about one minute and twenty-two seconds. That was okay though because about a month earlier Ed Meese’s intern for that spring backed out. When they were looking through a stack of résumés, they saw mine, liked it (primarily because my college president was legitimately listed as a reference), interviewed me, and offered me the job.

So, when my box burned, I moved to DC. I stayed in a lot of hostels, and in my spare time, I worked at an alcohol-delivery service. The internship was great. I got to work with a lot of cool people. And I delivered a lot of alcohol to famous people; I can’t name any here—they might sue. I also delivered to a lot of normal people. I can name them here, but that’s because they don’t have enough money to sue me. They include Dan Bociad, Daoud Douadheh, Jerry Asodiehribhdlk, Daniel McCarthy, and Osama Dosudfbneoud.

Anyway, round about May of that year, I was living with a waitress from Hard Times. There are several of these restaurants in the DC area, one in North Carolina, and they are opening one up in England. Awesome food! Awesome atmosphere. Awesome damn place. Go there if you get the opportunity, but don’t go there if you are on hard times. They aren’t really expensive, but you should save your money, read some Hulsmann, and get a job.

Back to the story. I was enjoying life. Scyndi was an awesome girl. She wanted to go to law school, but she couldn’t get accepted anywhere in the US. I think she finally went to Slovakia to get a degree. Matus will write about her expertise in one of his European sex columns, but kissing and telling ain’t my thing. So, I won’t go in to here…at least not for free. If you do want to know, it’ll be $11.57; call me at (911) 911-9111. No credit cards or personal checks accepted.So, Scyndi and I were enjoying the fruits of our labor. I was getting $10 a day for working at Heritage, about $43 a night delivering booze, and still getting my welfare checks. Hell yeah baby. But then Gwen showed up with this Russian I had once dated and some Antartican kid who claimed that I ran over his penguin in Nebraska. Yeah, and then they burned down my shack by the river in Anacostia.

That’s okay though because the internship was up and DC was tiring me out. Plus, Scyndi and I had done about all the experimentation that we could anyway.

I drifted around for a year or so. Lived in a lot of places. Always watching my back. Hoping no one else tracked me down. Well, that is, except the mailman who delivers my checks. I attended law school, received a fellowship from this libertarian organization in Alabama, and returned to the Austrian school of thought. It was a rough road, and the fellowship ends tomorrow. The money, contrary to Bob Dylan’s t-shirts, has run out. I’ll miss everybody here, but I’m happy I found my way back to being a Meesesian. It all works out. Oh yeah, two Slovaks, an Iowan, and a Czech burned my apartment down last night! They said Gwennie Rothbo paid ‘em. It’s time to drift on. Later.

So Much For the Argument that Public Government Provides Order and Security: "Much media glares daily at Iraq deaths. We get the tally over and over. I have friends who repeat it with sad faces. It is sad. But then a friend said to me, "Why doesn’t the PM news tally the deaths in every American city — from bullets and knives and abusive parents against children and threatening spouses against one another? Good, practical, honest point. Why not?"

Cohen states: "Security analysts divide these attacks into two categories. The first comprises looting and plunder of the oil infrastructure, including fields, pumping stations, pipelines, and refineries. Organized crime is also getting in on the action, as was shown in the interception of a barge carrying 1,000 tons of stolen Iraqi oil. Smugglers typically ship oil to Iran, which re-flags and re-exports it."

What's the difference between this and U.S. military forces sweeping in, taking over the barges, pipelines and oil production and "re-exporting" the oil?Are the smugglers violating property rights? If so, whose property rights, the Iraqis? I don't recall the Iraqis signing over their rights to oil to the U.S.Then Cohen says: "The number of Iraqi guards necessary to provide security must be increased. The U.S. should consider hiring an international-security company to administer pipeline security. Such a contractor could also train the Iraqi "rent-a-cop" guards for the task. The U.S. should pay the Iraqi tribes whose areas the pipelines cross to keep the looters and terrorists out. We should also cut our payments, in proportion to any damages incurred, if security is violated."

Hmm. Private security? Well that's interesting, but does this sound like a racket to anyone else? Invade a country, take over the pipeline and then threaten not to pay for it if the tribes don't comply and provide security? Do these tribes or the people of Iraq have anything to do with the attacks on the pipelines and barges?

Richard Perle, a leading Pentagon adviser and architect of the U.S. war to topple Saddam Hussein, said the United States had made mistakes in Iraq and that power should be handed over to the Iraqis as fast as possible.

I passed along my friend's comments about 'the State' because I thought theywere rather ironic, given that Libertarian Jackass himself has been known tocriticize libertarians who obsess over 'the state' in the abstract and neverbring the discussion down to the level of particulars. LJ noted thatwhile truly libertarian (i.e. Austrian) economics is methodolicallyindividualist and concerned with human action, we still keep talking aboutthe non-human State as if it had an independent reality of its own.

Of course, I'm as guilty of that as anyone. What's more, I do thinkthere's an important sense in which the State, and other social institutionslike the family or corporations, does merit being treated as an entity inits own right, even apart from its components. But it's undeniably truethat all this talk about 'the State' gets very stale very quickly and canmake us all sound like jargon-spouting cultists.

Lately I've been thinking about the implications of treating 'statists' as aclass rather than 'the State' as an entity. There's good precedent forthis: before Karl Marx developed his theory of class there had been othertheories of class that used the possession of political power, rather thancontrol of the means of production, to mark out the different strata ofsociety. John C. Calhoun developed one such theory, several of the betterFrench classical economists, Bastiat for example, had developed similartheories. And going back further, Etienne de la Boetie is also workingalong parallel lines in "The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude."

My own theory of class, assuming I ever dream one up, is probably going tobe quite a bit different from these, but they give me something to workwith. I mean, isn't Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, every bit as much a partof 'the State' -- if not more so -- than some clerk at the DMV? Certainlyif you want to understand how 'the State' operates you need to understandEllison and Oracle at least as well as the DMV. And what about, say, YaleUniversity? It's Yale, really, the State? The guy who started the FreeState Project, Jason Sorens, is probably ok -- he actually seems to have hishead screwed on straight, even though the FSP sounds like the kind ofhare-brained scheme libertarians are always hatching -- but Sorens aside,how many anti-statist Yalies are there?

Nock wrote the classic, "Our Enemy, the State." We need a few more greatbooks to be written, with titles like, "Our Enemy, Yale."

A friend of mine who reads LJ regularly had this to say. I think you mayactually agree with him:

"The only problem I have with [libertarian]jackass.com is that it seems toobsess over "the State" which just gets tiresome after a while, even though it's theessence of libertarianism I guess. Generally it's just best to forget thestate and confront personalities instead. Not only because it is closer tothe truth and better writing, it's also more fun to read about scathingcriticisms of other people, not the faceless "state." Writing "the State"in every other sentence makes one sound like...well, a reallibertarian-type, and they should be one of the prime targets oflibertarianjackass.com."

Libertarian Jackass Note:Thanks for the hate mail. In fact, in an as-yet-unpublished academic paper, I criticize Rothbard, Hoppe et al, on this exact point! Unfortunately on here it often serves as an easy metaphor, ESPECIALLY in response to Statist arguments (many of the posts so far are take offs on imbecilic comments I receive from Republican and conservative kiddies with minimal understanding of the importance of human action). One of the main inspirations for LJ was Mises's emphasis that praxeological economic and political analysis must trace all phenomena back to individual human action and not devolve into endless rambling about "the State." Please stay tuned or feel free to submit your insights.

Editor's Note: Although I have no idea what the heck this guy is talking about, we at Libertarian Jackass wish to make all attempts to maintain an open, diverse and tolerant community in cyberspace based on the principles of equality, justice and the equal distribution of wealth. This is the first installment in attempt to fulfill intellectual "diversity" quotas. . . we welcome responses or submissions at mail@libertarianjackass.com.

What does “libertarian thinker” conjure up in your head? Oxymoron of course! For, no person in their right mind would be foolish enough to have such tunnel vision as to dwell upon society without state or even a society with minimal state for that matter. Of course, the jackass libertarian will carry it one step further and throw out the question, what are the parameters for a person to be considered in their “right mind.” For the latter, I offer no comment at this time but, based on the author’s medical background, I encourage no rebuttal. For the former I begin a journey into the mind of a realist, or, what feeble minded theorists (libertarians) consider, a statist. Please realize the ultimate goal is to save the libertarians from the illness I have coined Tunnel Vision. Much to the chagrin of compassionate thinkers such as the author of this chapter, those who fail to find the panacea (statism) will encounter their syndromes unattenuated. So grab the nearest libertarian tough guy and encourage him to look outside the box, for the solutions may not be via the paved road most often taken.

Although I like to separate myself from the extreme thinking of Sen. McCain, his words strike close to heart, “There is nothing more noble than to sacrifice and serve our country's cause, causes greater than our self-interest." A common fallacy in the libertarian world is the belief that dwindling governmental control will encourage a surge in privatizing sectors leading to collaborating strongholds. State serves to draw together, establish agendas, and protect the utmost important matters on Earth: Life, Liberty, and Happiness (Property as well). A man committed to his country and making the greatest sacrifice puts self-interests aside. For, according to the libertarian theory, which will herein be renamed the JCWILKY Dogma, a dissolved state will lead to a peaceful world of no enemies and therefore no need for a military. Great job guys (Gorf speaking there), way to reinvent the wheel and develop the Rosetta Stone for thousands of years of conflict. While this noble idea appears likable on paper, realism takes over and the ensuing chaos among the groups of gangs vying for control of the privatized sectors will surely strike down any attempt towards advancement. For the libertarian who argues his voice isn’t heard in Washington, let us review how many libertarians even vote. The apathy among them is an epidemic certainly headed for the CDC. I mean, for god’s sake, libertarian jackass, editor of this forum, voted only once in his life, and that was for Bush in 2000. He’s at least batting 1 for 1 on that choice (not being facetious). Democracy has bloomed in the US for over 200 years. Hundreds of thousands of men have died protecting the liberty of this country. It is a deplorable shame and the utmost disrespectful sin to belittle the contribution of life these men gave to this great country. The very thought of the libertarian jackass burying his tail between his legs, putting his pad on his twat, and running to the border on draft day is the nail in the coffin. What an irony….having no problem complaining, but heading for the nearest exit when trouble strikes home.

What libertarians fail to realize is that a step backwards may land two steps forward. The subpar thinker or libertarian wants the simple, black and white answer. This mediocrity does not exist and dissolved state with privatized sectors allocating resources is simply not a feasible solution. A great example of this can be seen in the post 9/11 actions undertaken by the US. The last thing the US wants to do is go to war. However, standing on our heels after the tragedy of 5,000 lives two years ago was never an option. The self-proclaimed witty libertarian will argue at this point that Osama was a puppet of US contingency and that the US is to blame for the loss on that tragic day. Yes while US-foreign intervention is not always received with the utmost red carpet, it is for the people that the US works to establish stability and peace in foreign lands. This will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 3 and the US interest in Iraq.

While the subpar to mediocre libertarian will be lost in this discussion eager to quickly fire back a rebuttal defending his own ill-defined path, I expect the average to above-par libertarian to walk away from this experience somewhat reveled. It is with this intensity I encourage you to dissect the points of the argument above. Feel free to ask for clarifications and I hope to read some intelligent comments. Thank you and goodnight.

With the utmost respect,

Carlos

A glimpse into the future:

Chapter 2

Choking in the Supreme Court:

“Sodomize This” and Other Funny, Misguided “of thy self” eponyms

Chapter 3

Expanding the Might in the Middleast:

How 200,000 more in Iraq…. will keep the Tyrants from coming back

Chapter 4

The many faults of T J…..not Tijuana: A dissection of the life of Thomas Jefferson

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

The most popular justification for the State seems to be this: man is evil, selfish, hostile or violent, and, as a result, government must be instituted to maintain order and protect rights. But, what are these Statists really saying? They are saying that man is evil, therefore other men must rule over him! The only retort would be that not ALL men qualify as evil and that these noble men should rule. In this case, it would make more sense to argue for a monarchy in which the rulers were noble, wise and courageous. Yet, in any case, how are the rulers chosen today? The modern Statists cheer for democracy--that the rulers be elected by the masses (potentially evil men)! At a glance it is a wonder why more people don't laugh at the whole idea! After all, most of us spent time in schools where class presidential elections were mere popularity contests with the stakes ilimited to control over the Homecoming dance theme. In modern democracy this popularity contest occurs with the stakes of massive redistribution of wealth and resources to favored interests on the line. Nonetheless, in this sense, a man, who may or may not be evil and violent, is elected by a majority, plurality or even a "5-4 Supreme Court" of (mostly) evil men, in order to use violence against other men in order preserve order and rights . . . truly absurd indeed.

Since everyone is talking about war--the war on terror, the war on Iraq, the war on poverty, the war on illiteracy, the war on AIDS, the war on drugs, the war on marriage, etc.--isn't it necessary to understand where the power to wage war comes from?

"To anticipate a bit, the war powers seem a near-complete inversion of the program of American liberal republicanism. If so, use of them, and even belief in them, would be odd ways to bring about those ends; for why should powers invoked, the better to fight an external enemy, give to our rulers powers over us â€“ powers which the external enemy cannot wield -- and may not wish to wield -- that is, powers over the citizens allegedly being defended? Who, indeed, is at war with whom?"

"As a fan of the New York Yankees, I would gladly trade the rights of the State of Florida to Cuba for some middle relief prospects and a good third baseman."

Ricky Williams, Dontrelle Willis, Tracy McGrady and Pavel Bure. Could you imagine this type of caliber player on your team, without the help of any fantasy league system? Probably not, but if it were feasible to contract all four major professional sports leagues (National Football League, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association and National Hockey League), these players may wind up in the starting rotation of your favorite team.

Now I am not talking about returning to the days of the original six in the NHL or back when the NBA and MLB were strictly in the United States. Over the last 20 years, 9 exhibition sports franchises have graced the state of Florida resulting in 4 championships (Dolphins, Panthers, Marlins and most recently Tampa Bay) Now, those in the state of Florida may be angered by these statements since the Boston Red Sox have not won a World Series since 1918 and the Chicago Cubs even longer. It took the NY Rangers some 40 years to return Lord Stanley’s Cup to New York.

Watch a sports highlight real for the Devil Rays, Heat, Panthers and Lightning. See something in common? Could it be the glare of those empty seats in the arenas that these teams play in? How is hockey supposed to survive in a system where the government closes the school if the temperature drops below 40 degrees Fahrenheit?

I am not talking about total contraction, but ease some of the teams away from the Florida market. In Florida, there are the universities that have phenomenal college football programs which contend for the national championship every year. Do they really need another football team? In the spring, half of the teams of the MLB visit Florida to take part in their spring training programs. For a month, some 18 professional baseball teams call Florida their home. Why does the state need two more?

If the idea of contraction were to exist, the players on these franchises would be spread out over the other existing teams in their appropriate league. Since each team would have another franchise player to add to the roster, the games in the leagues would be more exciting since their would be tougher competition all around. It would make the athletes work even harder to maintain a position on their roster and demanding 100% each time they step on the field, because if they failed, well, there is another able body to do their job. Maybe this contraction would cause player contracts to remain at a certain level instead of skyrocket to even more astronomical levels as they are doing now. Who knows? As a fan of the New York Yankees, I would gladly trade the rights of the State of Florida to Cuba for some middle relief prospects and a good third baseman. Heck, with the U.S. burdened by rising deficits and Social Security program bankruptcy, dumping the retirement home that is Florida could help avert a financial crisis. Thus, proving once again that with less focus on politics and government and more time on sports, the world would be a better place.

"But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "

"China's central bank announced steps during the weekend to tighten what it called excessive bank lending in an effort to stave off possible inflation. It increased a reserve requirement on the country's commercial banks, allowing it to curb money supply growth in an economy expanding at more than 8 percent a year as it tries to reduce corporate defaults."

"Central bank officials said this month that excess money supply -- coming largely from rising exports to the United States that are bought with U.S. dollars -- and runaway credit might hurt the economy."

Because increasing the supply of money means a redistribution of wealth to the initial recipients of the money (the Chinese financial sector and government favored groups) AND the start or continuation of lines of production (investments) which would NOT OTHERWISE be created, society is impoverished in relation to what COULD HAVE been produced. Interestingly, as this article implicitly points out, it is the increase in the supply of money by the central bank which leads to the rise in prices. However, the rest of the article is full of economic fallacies including the fear of falling prices and the myth of "consumer demand" and recessions.

But, the real interesting item is the 25 billion dollar in speculative capital flooding into China on the bet that the yuan will rise against the dollar. Mark my words, this is at the heart of the issue. The Central Bank has instituted a price ceiling on the yuan (the exchange value of the yuan against the U.S dollar) which cannot be maintained.

"This site was recommended to me by sometimes contributor "Wilky". The complaints this aptly named "jackass" registers are ridiculous. To think that I hid under the veil of "Libertarian" in high school to curb the ridicule of being a conservative. "Nazi/Soviet security forces"? What airports have these guys been flying out of? I'd estimate that I've flown ten to 15 times since September 11th, 2001 and not a single time did I feel my rights were being violated. Sure they ask for your photo ID. Hell I got patted down flying out to New York after failing a metal detector test. I suppose this is somehow the Nazi "Show me your papers!" drill? Give me a break, I have no fear of being carted off to a gulag in Alaska for the rest of my days and nor should you. If you guys are truly concerned about socialist infiltration then I suggest you stop worrying about Bush and the "Neo-cons" and start worrying about the leftists within our own country and the socialists across the Atlantic."

Despite the reviewers obvious dodging of any real issue, I think the comments are rather congenial! Let's hope they keep the gulags in the middle of the U.S in warmer climates like they did during World War II! Please visit that site -- www.aaroncommand.com. The analysis, particularly on economic issues, is just plain dazzling!

Unfortunately, the reviewer fails -- or chooses not to -- acknowledge that conservatives AND liberals are both Statists and collectivists! In simple terms, they use identical means to achieve (sometimes) different ends. For example, liberals (Democrats) want the State to steal private property and redistribute it to their favored political groups(welfare). Conservatives (Republicans) want the State to steal private property and redistribute it to their favored political groups (warfare). When examined in real terms, the reviewer's disdain for European Statism is laughable at best. For more, see the below post titled "What's Wrong With World Government?" I still have not received an answer.

Let us be the first to point out that the problem with NASA is that it is a huge, government bureucracy. This is a great example of how the stooges of the State will go to any extent to justify the contiuance of a failed government program -- even one that results in the tragic loss of human life.

How can any intelligent person question the legitimacy of the State? (Note: When we refer to the State we are referring to any State other than the U.S. Of course, the U.S. is the greatest beacon of freedom the world has ever known!) The assertion that government does NOT create stability is ludicrous. For example, just look at the stability created here last week! Further, crime is down in the U.S.! Do not raise the question of what crime WOULD BE absent collectivism in the production of security! Without the great, glorious State warlords and gang violence would take over our lives!

Monday, August 25, 2003

"The man-hating woman, like the cold woman, is largely imaginary. One often encounters references to her in literature, but who has ever met her in real life? As for me, I doubt such a monster has ever actually existed. There are, of course, women who spend a great deal of time denouncing and reviling men, but these are certainly not genuine man-haters; these are simply women who have done their utmost to snare men, and failed. Of such sort are the majority of inflammatory suffragettes of the sex-hygiene and birth-control species. The rigid limitation of offspring, in fact, is chiefly advocated by women who run no more risk of having unwilling motherhood forced upon them that so many mummies of the Tenth Dynasty. All their unhealthy interest in such noisome matters has behind it merely a subconscious yearning to attract the attention of men, who are supposed to be partial to enterprises that are difficult or forbidden."

I'm fed up with whining from conservatives and Republicans about the threat of "World Government" (or even the expansion of socialist Europe to a more dominant role in the world.) Jumping from Rothbard's "Nationalities Question", I don't see why these people can sit around watching Fox News while the world is in a state of "international anarchy!" If their logic holds, a single, territorial monopolist on coercion and force (government) which at least provides police, defense and judicial services (the "minimal state") is necessary. They argue that without such a monopoly "anarchy and chaos" will ensue! Yet, they calmly sit around while hundreds of competing monopolists (governments) exist all over the world! There must be some mathematical formula for the exact size of a "territory" to be monopolized! Frankly, I'm annoyed at not only their apathy, but the resistance to pointing out this chaotic mess! They even have the nerve to ridicule the United Nations--a noble attempt to form a world governming institution! Rothbard points out:

"Minarchist libertarians and conservatives balk at the inner logic of world government for obvious reasons: for they fear correctly that world taxation and world socialization would totally and irreversibly suppress the liberty and property of Americans. But they remain trapped in the logic of their own position."

If a world government leads to a monopoly sending us down the "road to serfdom," how do these idiots not realize they are stuck on some notion of geography! If a territorial monopoly is SO IMPORTANT to mainting life, liberty and property, then these idiots ought to advocate a world government! If a world goverment is not desirable, then their entire argument falls apart!

The moral of the story: conservatives, Republicans and the idiot "minarchists" or minimum Statists need to stop being wimps and start advocating world government.

Sunday, August 24, 2003

The greatest thing about talking to a Republican or Fox News Conservative (you know, the people sitting at the kiddie table during intellectual discussions) is that they continue to spout the idea the the State is some sort of "protection agency," preserving order, life and property! Unfortunately for them, this view finds no theoretical or historical evidence and is tantamount to some sort of religious fervor for Statism. I BELIEVE THE STATE IS NECESSARY, THEREFORE IT IS AND WITHOUT IT WE HAVE CHAOS! Maybe if these people actually read something other than their coloring books (i.e. any book by someone named Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc), such as Charles Tilly's War Making and State Making As Organized Crime, they could formulate an effective argument. And since some of them seem to find reading difficult, this link is to an article that is not only short but simple enough for a third grader to comprehend! Instead, these children make ridiculous comments about the "minimal state" (which never existed) and the need for government to "prevent represson" (the State ITSELF is the greatest example of repression, oppression and violence in human history) and that government prevents chaos (in fact, government is actually the creator of chaos, see Mises or even Hayek on socialism or the next great economist on error and chaos http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_4_1.pdf). What's next? I can't wait to hear how public officials are driven by an interest in the social good!

Tuesday, August 19, 2003

During the Monica Lewinsky scandal the "vast" right-wing "playa haters" crawled out of their little holes. They talked a lot about Clinton "lying to the American people," but what they really meant is that Clinton gets ladies and they don't! And now, as Irving Kristol describes, the "neo-con haters" have emerged. Just like the "playa haters," the neo-con haters lament their lack of women, money and power. Think about all the people hating on the neo-cons: internet writers and pansy liberal commentators. It is no coicidence that neither of these groups fall into the category of the "power elite" at the moment. Just like rappers get hated on for rollin' in the dropped 64 chevy and "bling bling"-ing, the neo-cons meet disdain for their flaunting of military "shock and awe" upon the children of Iraq and their news conferences to update Americans on the newest "threat to liberty." Word to all the hopeless conservatives and libertarians: stop hating the neocons for having weapons and women. Stop sitting around your little computers in the middle of the night devising the newest insight on the history of neo-con thought. We all know its just a shameless attempt to mask your insecurities. . .

Thursday, August 14, 2003

Power outages from Detroit to New York City prove that government planning impoverishes society. A quick look at the government news channels provides more comic relief: idiot commentators talking about how "cooperative" and "calm" people are being in the return to the dark ages! And, of course, who is to blame? To quote Neil Cavuto: "I don't mean to be the alarmist here, but why are you so quick to say this is non-terrorist related?"

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

Not only does Gary Coleman's campaign for California Governor add to the circus that is California government and politics, the guy is right on in his take on politicians. Wednesday, on America's most trusted network -- FauxNews -- Coleman responded to O'Reilly's imbecilic questions about turning the campaign into a joke by saying: "Bill, I've always thought politics was a joke." And for this alone, he gains our endorsement--although we do not vote nor do we encourage anyone else to engage in such a childish activity.

Sunday, August 10, 2003

Unless you are a complete idiot you know that U.S. airports have been annexed by the Nazi/Soviet security forces. Yet, in this sea of socialism, there is JetBlue. With leather seats, DirectTV at every seat, NO airline food and a new business model, they are taking the socialist airline industry by storm.

Saturday, August 09, 2003

As much respect as i have for dan McCarthysim his interpretation of "the royal tenenbaums" is all wrong. I told him that it is a beatiful story of how reconcilliation can take place; he informed me that it was like the neocons who say the "ends justify the means." I would like to say that this is total b*llsh*t. This movie showed that nobody planned to live their life hedonistically and then make up for it in the end, hence justifying their means with the ends. It totally points out that no matter how bad we screw up we can still make amends. It is ludicrous for people to tie this movie in with the neocon movement. Those bastards begin with the premise that the ends justify the means; therefore "the royal tenebaums" is no such movie. In this movie, people are moving aimlessly through life trying to hedonistically satiate themselves. However, this movie teaches that there is still the possibilty of redemption, even if you see the error of your ways very late in life i.e. the thief on the cross. This movie did not justify an ' nds justify the means approach.' It showed the possibility of redemption no matter how bad one has f***ed up. Just because McCarthyism didn't like this movie, doesn't mean it sucked. It only shows that McCarthyism is a political genius and not a movie critic. Seriously, this is the guy who liked "Bride of Chucky." Pay attention to what mcCarthyism has to say about politics, disregard his movie criticism.

Friday, August 08, 2003

Man! I have become a libertarianjackass-addict!! Are you proud of what you did??? Like bbc and mises and the like wasn't enough, now i have to deal with this new addiction. Man, either you gotta keep updating your site every minute or so, or stop the whole damn activity.......

If you have ever been to a libertarian conference, you know the most annoying question that pops up: what can we do to spread our ideas to the masses and create the libertarian paradise? When this question is asked, I usually laugh out loud. Why? The person asking it is inevitably a complete social outcast. Take for example, Matus Petrik. Now, many of you may not know Matus and frankly that really does not matter . . . because I know him. He hails from Slovakia and will be writing in as our European Sex Editor. Not only does he talk about his sexual encounters (whether imagined or real) incessantly and utter unintelligble phrases in english and slovak, he spends hours at night photocopying books in the library at an unidentified economics research institute. I fear that ANY time he opens his mouth to expresses his ideas that anyone within earshot becomes vehemently opposed to the libertarian ideal. But, this just brings me to a more general observation: almost every student (and/or person) in the movement is a complete reject. Further, if they are not a complete reject, then they qualify as a partial reject. On the other hand, I often wonder if some of these people rather enjoy being a marginalized school of thought. That's why the kids that have to spend lunch in the library because they have no friends are attracted to this movement. Imagine if it went mainstream! How can these kids live without daily dinner conversations consisting of whether or not it is OK for parents to harvest their children's organs for sale on the market in a "libertarian or anarchist society." So put down your Magic cards and turn off Buffy the Vampire Slayer--there will not be a libertarian revolution...

Wednesday, August 06, 2003

Sports stars are celebrities. They aren’t normal people. They can’t be treated as such. Take pro-football. We tune in every Sunday to watch these guys beat the hell out of each other. Golf? We tune in every Saturday and Sunday to watch rich aristocrats spank a ball around the woods (or at least we tune in when Woods is in woods). Basketball? Well, everyone tunes in to watch the Lakers at least.

And that brings us to the point. Kobe Bryant is the pre-eminent star today. Sorry, Shaq. Go on a diet, learn how to ball, and maybe we’ll change our minds. Anyway, we diverge. Maybe Kobe did do it. Maybe he didn’t (which we are inclined to believe). But does it really matter? NO. If Kobe were to go to jail, there would be great social losses and private losses.

Let’s start with society—our most important concern. If Kobe goes to jail, Lakers ratings go down. If Lakers ratings go down, then basketball (which is struggling as it is) goes under. This ties directly into American Priority Three—Sports.

Now, there is a legitimate econometrical study done by the eminent economist Raul Swick that needs to be understood at this juncture. According to this study, any time at all that Kobe spends in jail (say even just an hour) is indeed an extreme harm to society(decrease in social wealth). Swick’s study involves the Hallsmenn multiplier. In this case, the multiplier—which is arrived at through an in-depth, objective study—was found to be $75,834,893. From this we can obviously see that even an hour spent by Kobe in jail reduces social wealth by $75,834,893.

Now, let’s consider the personal losses involved. First and foremost, little Natalia Bryant, Kobe’s daughter, has to grow up without a father. Second, Vanessa has to live without a husband, raise a child on her own, suffer from a loss of her husband’s income string, and remain celibate. How many young, black American males are currently or have been in prison? The number is over 50 percent, obviously our system is racist on that fact alone. Finally, do you think Kobe is going to prosper in prison? No. Look at Mike Tyson. What did prison do for him? He was sent up the river for a girl he was convicted of sexually assaulting, and now, he wishes he had. Aren't these type of psychological confusion tactics illegal under the Geneva Convention? That’s like having Saddam come into the room denying that he had any Weapons of Mass Destruction, getting executed by Bush, and then coming back as a ghost saying, “I wish I’d had me some of those damn WMD’s.”

So, what’s the solution then? Simple. Professional athletes are above the system. The issue is not whether or not they committed a crime. Who cares? It doesn’t matter because we are not going to punish them. Think of all the time and money we could have saved during Juice’s trial if we didn’t care whether he stabbed and killed the two victims. I mean, in the end, we reached the same result anyway—namely, OJ is still free. In the interest of promoting social wealth, equality and eliminating racism, these athletes should be set free.

Now, don’t get confused. This same logic does not apply to collegiate athletes or female athletes (unless Jenna Jameson is a female athlete). In the case of collegiate athletes, they should be eligible to go to jail. It must be understood though that while in jail, the state shall fund and supervise their conditioning training and weightlifting in order to ensure they are higher quality, more marketable athletes upon release. Just look at the Russian gymnastics teams before the fall of the USSR. I mean, what red-blooded American wasn’t in awe of those broad-shouldered, brazen beauties?

Obviously female athletes don’t matter. Who watches female sports? Anyone? And the Colonial Golf Tournament that Anna participated in doesn’t count here! Remember, that was a male sporting event in which she participated by invitation!

Let’s recap. No one cares if Kobe is guilty or innocent. It’s bad for society to send him to jail either way. It’s bad for his daughter, wife, and him if he goes to jail. We could have saved a lot of time in the 1990s if no one cared if OJ was guilty. No professional athletes should go to jail. College athletes are different. Females don’t count (kind of like before they were given the right to vote). And finally, FREE KOBE BRYANT!

Tuesday, August 05, 2003

Undoubtedly, you've heard about the trade deficit and the budget deficit, but I doubt you've heard of the freedom deficit. Yet, it is the freedom deficit which is at the foundation of our economy and society. This concept is based on a theory developed by one M. Devlin Cooper: "Is it not right that in order to get a little freedom one has to give a little freedom?" Cooper asks. At first glance, I am astounded by the depth of this insight. Freedom is not a zero-sum game or even a political ideal as Lord Acton advocated, instead freedom is an investment. The path to greater freedom, much like the path to economic growth is saving (i.e. NOT using your freedoms TODAY, but rather giving them to another organization (the GOVERNMENT) to use in the production of MORE freedom in the future (through war, regulations, programs, etc!) The problem? Americans don't invest enough in freedom. It's quite easy. Man is born in a state of nature which some would call perfect freedom. What a miserable, solitary existence! The story of the 20th Century has been one of individuals voluntarily giving up a resource (freedom) to governments. And look at the results! Advances in science, industry and culture! But, while citizens around the world continue to demostrate their willingless to give up more freedom, Americans seem to resist! I hear the incessant whining about the war on terrorism or new restrictions that violate the Bill of Rights! Don't be fooled! The Founding Fathers subsisted on water, tobacco and the fruits of slavery! Without the adequate investment in freedom (as demonstrated by the decline in freedom during the 19th and 20th centuries), we would not enjoy "the land of the free and home of the brave" that we now inhabit. Don't focus on the short run! Giving up your freedom in favor of more government programs, controls and regulation (what I like to call benevolent or voluntary tyranny) will lead to even greater freedoms in the future. So, in the interest of freedom, consider giving up more freedoms today and help build a solid accumulation of freedom for the future! If not for yourself, do it for your children.

Monday, August 04, 2003

I sometimes encounter idiot (or ignorant) libertarians claiming that "socialism" works--as long as its tried with small groups. Well, a certain libertarian organization holding its summer seminars experimented with this idea. Without market prices for meals, chaos has ensued. Not only are shortages occuring, but the organization has resorted to rationing food (i.e. only 1 serving per person regardless of demand). The central planners (kitchen staff) have resorted to using "rough estimates" for food preparation based on the number of people present at the conference. But, the amount produced is purely arbitrary it seems and not at all catered to the preferences and demands of consumers. Fortunately, the food is not actually produced at the site, showing once again socialism can persist if real markets exist outside. For the idiot libertarians, and especially idiots of all stripes who continue to maintain that socialism is feasible, do your homework.

Sunday, August 03, 2003

The State of California is teetering on the brink of financial collapse. As a State with the 13th largest economy in the world, this is not only tragic but also completely unnecessary. Forget the partisan budget negotiations. Forget the tedious signature gathering to recall Governor Joe (aka Gray) Davis. Forget the rolling blackouts two years ago and the recent warnings of a similar impending energy crisis. These are all minor problems. California’s number one problem—aside from their state government—is their inelastic money supply.

So, what’s an inelastic money supply got to do with it? A lot! A whole lot! Sure, California suffers from rampant spending that is necessary to prop up their government programs[1] , but this is not a problem. After all, private markets would lead to great inequities in the state, and some people may even go hungry. Let’s be real. Pete Wilson “deregulated” the energy industry in California, and look where that got them.

No, California’s biggest problem is the “inelasticity” of the money supply. With an inelastic money supply, there is simply not enough money and credit available for the State to fund its essential programs. Simply stated, California is in a “liquidity crisis.” Indeed, the culprit behind California’s current budget crisis is not even in California (stop looking at the list of former Governors and please refrain from pointing your finger at Gray). No, the perpetrator is none other than Alan Greenspan!

Recognizing and admitting that this is the problem is indeed the first step to solving California’s crisis. You see, it is only after this first step that you can see the forest through the trees and recognize the obvious solution to California’s problem—a new Central Bank with its own currency![2]

It’s difficult to pinpoint other possible causes of California’s financial crisis. It might be the “excessive saving” that the citizens of California continue to insist upon indulging in that results in less consumption and lower sales tax revenues. Although many Americans have dutifully followed President Bush’s call to demonstrate patriotism through spending, some Californians chose instead to selfishly pursue their own family’s welfare. Clearly, these people put their families ahead of our communities.

On the other hand, maybe it’s the profiteering investment groups trying to make a quick buck in inefficient capital markets that are crucifying California’s finances. Again, just look to the energy crisis that plagued California in the fall of 2000. Forget the fact that A.B. 1890—the main attempt by California to “deregulate” the electricity business—was heavily prescriptive and merely replaced one set of regulations with another set. No, greedy capitalists caused the energy crisis. Just go back and listen to Gray Davis’s speeches and announcements.[3]

It is clear that t he centralization of the monetary system in the United States has failed. The Federal Reserve is no long able to manage the complexities of California’s stunning economy. Has Greenspan ever visited Venice Beach? Is he really in touch with the needs of Californians for after-school programs or the courageous “living wage”? To answer these questions one need look only to the balance sheet of the Federal Government and ask: is it in peril of going bankrupt in a matter of hours?

In times of crisis, we must use history as our guide. The theories of economists do not fit the complex modern world in which we live. Prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve System, an inelastic money supply, liquidity crises, credit market instability, government deficits, and business recessions plagued Americans. The creation of a system centralizing the banking sector permitted the Federal Reserve to create money and credit to fund government debt, fuel economic growth, and maintain the stability of our nation’s financial markets. Everyone prospered from this; we cannot deny its successful, important role in providing our present standard of living. Now, history must repeat itself. It is time for California—in order to grow as a State and economy and to better provide for its citizens—to create a central bank, float its own currency, and monetize the deficits.

Combining the histories of the gold rush in California and their most distinguished citizen Ronald Reagan, an obvious choice for California is to create the “Golden Reagan.” The State should construct their Central Bank at the site of Sutter’s Mill, the epic-site giving rise to California’s gold rush. With these changes, the government of California will be better suited to serve the demands of its citizens, by providing money and credit to fund failing state programs like schools, universities, health services, child care, and sex changes.[4] In fact, California’s failure to implement programs like these (opponents have gone as far as labeling them “socialistic”) stems from the federal government prohibiting California through threat of physical violence from acquiring enough liquidity to provide for their subjects—eh, citizens.

With financial collapse impending, this is not a time for in-depth debate about the feasibility of such a plan. Instead we must ask what we will do in the absence of State government programs? Who will employ these people in the absence of the state of California? Who will teach our children without State schools, colleges and universities? Who will provide quick, efficient transportation on the 405 Freeway? Who else can we look to in ten years to fund sex changes for the needy? Can you imagine your child walking home from school, crossing busy street intersections without the assistance of your friendly neighborhood State-funded crossing guard?

We are not merely advocating a policy of assistance to the State government. This is not a scheme whereby we simply print dollars and pay our debts like some sneaky counterfeiter. We are advocating this solution as a final effort to avert economic collapse, massive unemployment and the death of children in our streets long before their time. This is a battle for the future of California. This is what is at stake. You are either with us or against us. The solution to all of California’s financial problems lies at their fingertips! If only they would recognize this panacea. Alas, there are better chances of President Reagan’s full recovery.

Jeff Cleveland is a political economy student at Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, California. Devlin Cooper is a student at George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia.

[1] You cannot blame Californians for their rampant spending since they are doing all that is possible to decrease the size of their state government. Remember, they voted to finally stop providing welfare to illegal aliens. Of course, California’s courts struck down this proposition, but what more can you ask for from Californians?[2] Not to mention, any type of California currency featuring the likeness of Ronald Reagan would have a direct-use value in addition to an exchange value. What direct-use value you inquire? Simple. Have you ever noticed how many neoconservatives collect Ronald Reagan memorabilia? It’s so profitable that Franklin Mint even has a Ronald Reagan pocket watch for sale—in addition to the Reagan statue and sculptures bearing Reagan quotes. Just check out their website at http://www.franklinmint.com. Some may even say that a Ronald Reagan currency would be as good as gold, but we’ll stop short of that for now and save that discussion for a future article.[3] Whatever you do though, don’t hunt down the truth about the crisis (though a good starting point for the truth is http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa406.pdf).[4] Admittedly, California does not currently subsidize sex changes. The City of San Francisco does fund sex changes though, and it would not surprise the authors one bit if the state began to do the same. After all, there are underprivileged members of Californian society who are entitled to sex changes.

Another child's actions threaten our freedom. Clearly the lack of funding for public schools has led this teenager down the wrong path. The question is: how should we respond as a nation? Sadly, in the defense of freedom, I must call for a public hanging as punishment. The American teen in Singapore received a flogging for stealing street signs. Judging by the severity of the comments in the note, I think setting an example for Americans is in order.

Ruddy hits the nail on the head, ladies and gentlemen. How dare Californians challenge the establishment? How dare they threaten a governor who hasn't had a full four years to abuse his privileges in office? Do they not realize that they are pulling the carpet right out from under the legitimacy of government? I am opposed to ALL recalls. In fact, when a politician is in office, citizens should REFRAIN from criticism. Not only is it unpatriotic and un-American, it is anti-freedom! Support Freedom. Support our Politicans!

"It's too late, because no one will ever know what Saddam would've done had Messrs Blair and Bush not acted. And it's too early, because the good reasons for this war — to unleash a process of reform in the Arab-Muslim region that will help it embrace modernity and make it less angry and more at ease with the world — will take years to play out." -- Thomas Friedman in the NYT

Yep. He is right. Imagine the consequences. I've said it before but I guess I have to keep telling you people: NO PRICE IS TOO HIGH IN THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM! NO PRICE!

Mike Tyson has filed for bankruptcy. It seems his career was ruined 10 years ago by a woman and now he is finally REALLY losing it all. I mean, how do you blow 300 million? He has a lawsuit pending against Don King for 100 mil, and the Feds probably stole another 150 mil. So, I guess 50 mil isn't all that much, especially considering he has a mansion in Vegas right next to Wayne Newton that takes up about 10 city blocks . . .

A summer in the deep South brings us in close contact with these lovely creatures! Unfortunately, Antero's hotel room is now INFESTED with Alabama cockroaches and being the nice, caring, generous guy that I am (actually women usually refer to me as an asshole but who here is interseted in the truth?), I've googled and linked some helpful hints on cockroach elimination.

A couple were arrested on child abuse charges for allegedly keeping their 5-year-old twin sons locked in filthy makeshift cages for nearly 20 hours a day. Surely we need a new government program to put a stop to these human rights violations! And just because the government showed up in 2001 to check out the conditions -- "State Child Protective Services officials received one complaint alleging the boys were neglected in 2001, but child-welfare workers visited the home twice and reported the children were outside playing, in good health and good spirits, agency spokeswoman Liz Barker said" -- doesn't mean the program is a failure. It just needs more money, more employees and less parental rights!

A reader writes in response to this: "they should put those people in small cages with cockoroaches and leave them there in their feces and urine to live for the rest of their lives." Fortunately, in the U.S., no such deterrent exists!

"Steven Levitt tends to see things differently than the average person. Differently, too, than the average economist. This is either a wonderful trait or a troubling one, depending on how you feel about economists. The average economist is known to wax oracularly about any and all monetary issues. But if you were to ask Levitt his opinion of some standard economic matter, he would probably swipe the hair from his eyes and plead ignorance. ''I gave up a long time ago pretending that I knew stuff I didn't know,' he says. 'I mean, I just -- I just don't know very much about the field of economics. I'm not good at math, I don't know a lot of econometrics, and I also don't know how to do theory. If you ask me about whether the stock market's going to go up or down, if you ask me whether the economy's going to grow or shrink, if you ask me whether deflation's good or bad, if you ask me about taxes -- I mean, it would be total fakery if I said I knew anything about any of those things.''"

Saturday, August 02, 2003

The government announced today that it is changing its emblem to that ofa condom because it more clearly reflects government's political posture.Condoms promote inflation, halt production, destroy the next generation,protect a bunch of pricks, and give you a sense of security while you'reactually being screwed. Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that!

Friday, August 01, 2003

Paul Krugman is a fool! Let's examine the evidence. Krugman claims that California's public school system was once "lauded" and that evil taxpayers are "starving" the system. As a product of the California public school system (as evident based on my deplorable use of the English language), I can remember a few things:1. Lots of "minorities" receiving free lunches2. Make that lots of "minorities" receiving free lunches, breakfasts and "snacks"3. A Fifth grade teacher who not only mispelled the word "field" (she used "feild" to spell "field trip"), but she argued about it with a fifth grade student! To this day I doubt she realizes the error.4. California public schools make perfect narcotics distribution centers (imagine the informational problems the market would have without such government intervention!)

Then Krugman (for a while I thought this guy was an economist but then I realized how HORRIBLE he is at that profession he has been forced to take up the role of political anaylst) rants about California being worse than Washington for failing to confront the real problems. The real problem, Paul, is that the state of California cannot create money and credit out of thin air in order to fund socialist government programs. Period. End of Story. There is no other reason for the difference.

In the meantime, California is a circus! And isn't it wonderful? Government looks like one, big freak show. Hey, even Larry Flynt is getting in on the fun! As Tupac would say, to live and die in LA, its the place to be!

"Actually the friend in the Royal Tenenbaums was on mescaline, not cocaine, though there may have been some cocaine use too. I can't remember. Whatever mescaline does to you, it can't be nearly as messed up as what the Royal Tenenbaums does. I fell out of my chair with boredome at one point. Like Jeff, I had to wonder what had happened to two hours of my life. The film has an interesting aesthetic -- at a costume party at Washington University several of my hipster friends dressed like the Ben Stiller character, for whatever that tells you -- but I'll be damned if I can figure out what the hell it was about other than mainstreaming incest, albeit non-biological incest."